I LOVE Alfonso Cuarón’s sci-fi action movie Children of Men. I’ve watched maybe six times and every time, the ending always almost brings me to tears. So when I learned it was adapted from P.D. James’ book of the same name, it was a no-brainer deciding what my next book would be.
After finishing the book, it wasn’t difficult to reach to the conclusion that I enjoyed the movie better.
While James’ book gives a more in-depth look at how human infertility and humanity’s slow death march towards extinction affects the sexual dynamic between men and women and almost demented ways humans try to cope with a world without children or a race of dead men walking, I feel the book dedicates WAY too much time describing the failing of human civilization and the Regrets and guilt of Theo Faron. It’s not even until after 2/3 through the book where it feels like the plot and story are properly paced and stuff of consequence actually begin to happen.
The film’s adaptation by, comparison, feels consistent in its pacing and the world building and woe-is-mes of Theo feel more compact a take up less of the audience’s time.
What books do you feel were worse than its film adaptation and why?
Jurassic Park is my go-to answer whenever this question comes up.
I agree with Jurassic Park, but some of Crichton’s other novels have terrible movie adaptations.
I love Congo the book, the movie is trash.
I love Sphere, and again, trash movie.
Timeline is considered one of his best (I enjoy it, but not one of my favs), and the movie is pretty shit.
Rising Sun is an odd case, as I don’t really like either the book or the movie, but for fans of the book, they usually prefer it, and the movie didn’t get good reviews when it came out.
The Great Train Robbery and The Andromeda Strain are classics, but I’ve never seen the adaptations of either.
I think the 13th Warrior was a better movie than Eaters of the Dead.
Yeah, it just annoys me what a transparent riff on Beowulf it is.